This Bill is the outcome of the recommendations of the Agricultural Commission which recently sought to inquire into the subject, and I think the Minister deserves credit for the promptness with which he has taken steps to legislate on the recommendations of that commission. We have often heard that commissions, both Royal and otherwise, have their recommendations ignored, but in the case of this commission, already on two very important matters their recommendations have been put into law—in the case of eggs and butter—and in this Bill the question of the improvement of cattle in this country is dealt with. The members who formed the Agricultural Commission deserve credit, as they brought forward a report on which the Minister could act. The principle in this Bill of compulsion is one which I would be very reluctant to support were it not that it received the support of the Agricultural Commission, and also the support of the other representative bodies that were interested in this subject. For my own part I would prefer to use some persuasion and education in order to induce farmers to improve their methods. The breed of cattle in the Free State, in my opinion, is quite as good as it is in other countries. Our cattle are far superior to the cattle in most other countries, and without any improvement in the breeding I think the standard of the dairy cattle in this country could be brought up to what is regarded as the standard of other countries if the cattle get sufficient feeding. I believe feeding has almost as much to do with the improvement of dairy cows as breeding. In most of the farms of this country the only food given to milch cows is grass and hay. The full supply of grass is only available from the middle of May to the middle of September. The cows that have been tested to find out the quality of milk are tested for a nine months' period, so that for five months of the period of test we might assume that the majority of the cows in Ireland have not sufficient food to supply the maximum amount of milk. If something could be got to supplement the food of the dairy cows during the periods when grass is scarce and short, it would, in my opinion, greatly increase the milk supply of those cattle. I am not so optimistic as to the millions which can be saved to the agricultural community in this country by the adoption of this Bill, but if the gain would only be one-tenth I think it would be worth passing. I think it is not safe to assume that the farmers in the past paid no attention to the improvement in their cattle. I think we might assume that the vast majority of them endeavoured to get the best bulls they could get for their cattle and were able to ascertain the yield of some of their good cows and take steps to get their female progeny for renewing their herds. Possibly in doing that they did not adopt the most scientific or exact systems, but we might take it that the farmers had always before them the getting of the fittest animals for the renewal of their herds. I support the Second Reading of this Bill, but as regards the drastic penalties that are contained in it I hope the Minister, in the Committee Stage, will see his way to reduce them to more moderate ones.
LIVE STOCK BREEDING BILL, 1924—SECOND STAGE.
I welcome the Bill on behalf of the Irish cattle trade, and I wish to thank the Minister for being so prompt in introducing it. The principle of the Bill is accepted by everybody who has any knowledge of the cattle trade or of the farming industry. That being so, I am sure it will have an easy passage through the Seanad. The Minister is very optimistic with regard to the good results that will accrue from it. He estimates the gain at one million, but from personal knowledge I believe that it will be four or five times that amount if the Bill is properly administered. Most of the loss which we are suffering at present occurs in the South of Ireland, and it occurs in this way. A number of farmers in the South specialise in breeding in-calf cattle, which they sell in the early spring to dairy farmers. They are very competent men, and they exercise great care and judgment in the selection of heifers put to the bull, but they exercise no care in the purchase, and they buy the cheapest bull they can procure to mate with these heifers. This is the cause of a good deal of the inferior stock in the country. When this Bill becomes law it will be impossible for careless farmers to do such a thing, because the bad bulls will be cleared out of the country. A good deal of adverse criticism has been directed against the Department of Agriculture. The Minister has loyally, and, I think, rightly, defended it, and the farmers owe it a deep debt of gratitude. It has done excellent work for the farmers, but it may, perhaps, possibly have made some mistakes. One of these mistakes was, I think, in sending to the dairy counties Polled Angus and Hereford bulls and giving premiums for keeping those bulls. The Polled Angus or Hereford crossed with a Shorthorn cow produced an excellent beast for beef purposes, but it must be remembered that the idea the farmers have in view for permanently improving the cattle could not be carried out by sending such bulls there, because you could not breed off the cross of either a Polled Angus or a Hereford. I have no fault to find with the Bill. I read it carefully, and I think it is a well-thought-out measure. I do not see the necessity for altering a single sentence in it, but there are some provisions which I regret the Minister did not see his way to insert. One is the de-horning of all young calves and the other the dressing of all cattle. It may be said that there may be too much compulsion and too much interference with the rights of farmers in the management of their farms, but can anybody say at this stage, when we have the experience before us of the Sheep Dipping Order and the Weeds Act, that these compulsory Acts operate to the detriment of the farmer and interfere too much with the management of his flocks and lands? Everybody admits that they are for the good of the community and for the good of the farmer himself. In the same way I approve of the LiveStock Bill.
I am sorry that the Minister did not see his way to insert a provision for the de-horning of calves. It is a simple process. The horns of the calf can be rubbed with caustic between three days and three weeks after birth, and that prevents the horns from growing. It would prevent a certain amount of cruelty that occurs in the de-horning of matured beasts with a saw or knife. It is against the law to de-horn cattle. Everybody admits that there is a certain amount of cruelty in that operation, but if we have not polled cattle for customers in Scotland and England they will not buy them, as most of these farmers who want polled cattle will not buy anything else. Polled cattle are in some cases worth £2 a head more than a beast with horns. I think it would be well if the Minister could see his way to take powers to make it compulsory to have all calves de-horned. From the point of view of cruelty a lot has been said since I last raised the matter in the Seanad some twelve months ago. I think that most people will admit that there has been an improvement made in this respect, and I contend that there would be still further improvement if the cattle were polled. At the moment I am not going to urge a clause for compulsory dipping, as the Minister said that the Department had not yet got a specific dip which it could recommend with confidence. I heartily support the Bill.
I do not rise for the purpose of making a long speech. I approve of the principle of the Bill, and I do not oppose its Second Reading. I have ventured, however, to table certain amendments which will come forward to-morrow. The Bill is a drastic one, and I might point out to the Minister that there is a fashion in bulls as in everything else. The present fashion is for Aberdeen, Shorthorns, and Kerry, but fashions change. The Minister has brought in an excellent Bill for improving our present breed of cattle, but as regards Clause 20 it looks as if by a second thought he introduced boars and rams into the Bill. I cannot understand why these have been brought in. The principle of breeding pigs and sheep is totally different from that of breeding cattle. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Civic Guard are to go round the country and poke their noses into every pig-sty to find out whether the right sort of boar is living there. Are the Civic Guard to perambulate the fields to see that the proper ram is running with the proper number of ewes? Inspectors who are appointed for that purpose will have to be well paid if they have to look after all the boars and run after all the rams. No doubt the pigs pay the rent in some parts of the country, that is if the rent is paid at all, but I think the Minister should stick to the cattle trade, and deal with pigs and sheep in another Bill.
As regards Clause 3, I understand from people who take a great interest in the welfare of the farmers, that the Minister has the right to turn out all bulls in certain districts unless they are of the right kind. I can see the Minister leading his pet bull into a district and I can imagine the bull turning round to him and saying: "Sir, don't you think I am rather de trop in this case?” There is no doubt the bull is a very combative animal and if we were to carry the Aberdeen or Shorthorn bulls into a district, I am sure the Minister will agree that the other bulls will have something to say to it. The principle of the Bill is very fine and there is no doubt that under it the cattle will be improved, but the Minister must remember that there is a fashion and he will have in future to conform to this fashion.
In this country white cattle and white bulls are not thought anything about at all. In fact, they will not sell. I hope the Minister knows that in the district of Penrith, in Cumberland, white bulls are the fashion. In the market of Penrith they sell just as well as our best cattle in this country. That is a very curious fact and I quote it to show the Minister how fashions in different parts of these two islands change and how fashions become almost a custom.
I do not think Senator Linehan did the Minister full justice when he said he promptly accepted the recommendations of importance in the report of the Agricultural Commission. I think the truth is that he not only accepted the recommendations but that he added a considerable amount himself. It is doubtful whether the recommendations are complimented thereby. I can say positively that the very important feature of this Bill regarding dairy bulls received no recommendation from the Commission on Agriculture at all. To make sure, I re-read carefully the Commission's report this morning, and there is no justification for one clause of the Bill to which I am going to refer—sub-section (2) of section 3. Under this section, the Minister has power to regulate the type of breed that should obtain in a given district. He has power to say that no Shorthorn, or no Aberdeen, if you like, shall be allowed to stand for service in, say, the county of Kerry. That is one of his typical examples—a Dairy Shorthorn in the Cahirciveen district of Kerry, or a Jersey, I think, in certain dairy areas of Limerick.
You must look at this matter in a practical, common sense way. By this action, the Government are going to stereotype the Kerry breed in a limited district of Kerry. Is that wise? Surely fashions change. The "Kerry" may be very fashionable, but, as Senator the Earl of Mayo has pointed out, there is no guarantee that, in course of time, the Kerries will not go out of fashion. I do not think anybody can persuade the Seanad that the Government mind is so quick and adaptable and flexible that it will anticipate any change of fashion and be ready to remove the ban on any particular breeds when the fashion is about to change. The obvious effect of this provision is that you stereotype the Kerry breed even when the Kerry breed has become unfashionable, and you will be imposing, by a very subtle and bureaucratic process, a handicap on the farmers of that district.
One of the greatest reasons that private enterprise lasts, and that it is the only form of human operation which will last, is that it adapts itself to the fashions. Take, for instance, ladies' clothes. Fancy a Government department trying to deal with that question and to regulate ladies' clothing. They could not do it. They could not change quickly enough. I admit that fashions in cattle do not change as quickly as fashions in ladies' clothes, but they do change, and they should be allowed to change without any undue governmental interference. Take an example. Suppose an unfortunate farmer happens to have a few Shorthorn cows in this proscribed district of Cahirciveen. He cannot get a bull for his cows, unless he uses a Kerry bull, or unless he keeps a pure-bred Shorthorn bull for his own cows. That is absurd. If he cannot keep a Shorthorn bull and cannot have access to a Shorthorn bull he must give up his Shorthorn cows. They may not be, theoretically, the best breed, but why should he not be allowed to have the Shorthorn breed and to procreate from the Shorthorn breed if he so desires? We are told that the powers in the Bill may or may not be used. But we must assume that they will be used. If they are not to be used, why have them here at all?
We will, of course, have a consultative council, but I do not regard the consultative council as any real safeguard at all. These councils are certainly better than nothing, but they are not really an effective substitute for private enterprise and individuality. I think the Minister has made a grave mistake in starting this experiment in State eugenics. I think that if you are going to get value, it would be far better to start on the human species than on the animal creation.
There were a few remarks made in the course of this debate with which I cannot agree. One of these remarks concerned the limitation of cattle in a particular district to one quality—that the bull must be of what is called "a dairy breed"—that is, calculated to beget stock with good dairy qualities. There are many districts in which the land is not suitable to dairying. There are many districts in which the land produces beef cattle. I quite understand that if you could get a dual-purpose animal—that is to say, equally good as a beef producer and a milk producer—it would represent the acme of perfection. I think it is pretty well acknowledged now that the dairy Shorthorn bulls are not an unqualified success. The stock they beget are not good beef-producers. I suppose the reason is that many of these dairy Shorthorns are what are called short-pedigree animals. The short pedigree animal will throw back to inferior ancestors. I suppose the Minister for Agriculture has looked into this matter, and that he will safeguard himself in connection with it.
As to the introduction of other breeds into the Kerry district, the "Kerry" has special advantages, especially for the inhabitants of what I may call Villadom—those who have small farms in suburban districts. The "Kerry" is very useful in those areas, but I notice that when introduced into England the "Kerry" very soon loses its characteristics. It can grow as big as any other breed. I dare say the Minister knows that two or three centuries ago "black cattle," as they were called, were to be found all over Ireland. In an inventory of a farm where rent was paid in kind, you find "black cattle" and "grey cattle" specified. The "grey cattle" were the descendants of those which had been imported from England and elsewhere. Where they now survive they have been very much improved by the introduction of the best Shorthorn and Hereford blood. But the "Kerry," like the unfortunate native, was driven into Connaught from those other districts where "black cattle" would not be allowed to exist. If you are going to improve the Kerry breed, you have your choice between getting something that will change the characteristics of the "Kerry," and make it more saleable or you will find great difficulty in getting suitable Kerry bulls to improve the breed.
The Department of Agriculture introduced Galloway Bulls to the West of Ireland. This breed had one valuable characteristic. They were hardy; they could starve better than any other cattle, but they had one great disqualification, and that was they were slow feeders. At the same time, some enterprising people introduced some Aberdeen Angus cattle into the West. Well, they were a breed of cattle that looked very similar, and very often when they were brought to market you had "skulled Kerries"—Kerries with the horns sawn off—and a Polled Angus cross and a Galloway cross. I know from what Scotch importers told me that almost the whole of that trade was ruined by the Galloway cross. They would not feed. At a certain time of the year, before they got their winter coats, they looked like a Polled Angus cross, and gradually the trade with the West was lost over that. Therefore I hope the Galloway will be considered an unsuitable animal to send out there, but I must say I am not altogether in favour of keeping the Kerry absolutely pure in all parts of the West. You may have close preserves, as you have for the bison. In other parts of Ireland improved breeds were brought in and the whole of Ireland, except the West, had the advantage of these larger and more quickly maturing cattle. I do not think it would be a good thing for the West that we should confine the farmers of that district to the breed we speak of as Kerry cattle. Senator the Earl of Mayo objected to sheep and pigs being included in this scheme. I think it is perfectly right we should include them. Why should not as much attention be given to the breeding of sheep and pigs as to cattle? Recollect we began with horses. Having been for so many years on the Board of Agriculture I know that all these matters were threshed out there, and this question of excluding scrub bulls from the country, if possible, was, I think, practically embodied in a Bill which the House of Commons never found time to pass, and which now, I have no doubt, will be passed in a better form by the Oireachtas. There are so many points that I am afraid I shall be taking up too much time if I refer to all of them. One question, I think, should be referred to, and that is the question of dishorning. There is no question that it is a cruel operation to saw the horns of an animal. Nobody can deny that. At the same time we know that cattle fetch a better price if they are what is called "skulled." To insist on the use of caustic potash on all occasions, as was suggested by one Senator, would be asking the Government to undertake an impossible task. I think if a small grant were given to encourage it, it would be far better than compulsory dishorning at that very early age.
One of the things which caused deterioration of our cattle, and which, I think, this Bill would go a great way to stop, was the system of trading in springers. That is to say, cows or heifers which are sold before calving. I know from my own experience and to my own loss, on many occasions, of a man taking grass lands and running a lot of heifers, perhaps outside my mearing, with any sort of bull. If the bull gets into any other person's land he would do irretrievable damage to any heifers on the land. I do not think any man should allow that, even if it was for his own benefit—that is to say, that it may not do him any harm—because probably the majority of the calves, when born, if sent to dairying or milk supplying districts on the other side of the Channel, would probably be knocked on the head. A man should not be allowed to do anything that would injure his neighbours. Therefore, I will fully support the Bill in its efforts to eliminate these scrub bulls. On the whole, I think the Bill will be a great blessing to the country, and I shall certainly support it in every way I can.
I join in supporting this Bill, particularly in so far as it makes for the elimination of scrub bulls. This Bill is, I think, brought forward really in the interests of the milk supply, and that is a question to which we ought to give the utmost attention in this country. I think it is a mistake to bring Bills of this sort, which are agreed on by all sides, into political discussions or to endeavour to make political propaganda at elections out of them. When such Bills come forward in the Dáil or Seanad, there will be less trouble in dealing with them if what I have referred to has not been done. Ministers did not invent this particular solution of the live stock question, and they have no particular claim to it, except that they brought the Bill forward. The provisions of the Bill were recommended by the Commission of Agriculture, and also by the Commission of Inquiry into the Resources and Industries of Ireland about two years ago. If there were any particular claim to the Bill, it would be by either of those Commissions and not by the Minister who brings it forward. I will pass from that, and I hope it will not occur again.
I wish the Minister had gone a good deal further in this matter recommended by the Committee of Inquiry. It is just as important that bad cows should be killed off as bad bulls. The unfortunate fact in this country is that people do not know which are their good cows and which their bad ones. I propose to read an extract in support of the statement I have made, because, no doubt, many farmers will say that they know all about their cows. They will say that they know themselves which are their good cows and which their bad ones. I propose to give an example of a cow testing association in which there were 368 cows on test for a full milking period. As the result of that test the average yield was found to be 443 gallons per cow. The ten best cows in the lot were tested and their average yield was found to be 830 gallons. Ten poor cows were tested and they only produced an average of 210 gallons. Therefore, the people who owned these ten poor cows were only getting 210 gallons of milk, while if they had good cows the yield would have been 830 gallons. It has been calculated that any cow yielding less than 380 or 400 gallons of milk in the year is a dead loss to the owner. They bring in no profit at all. The owner is simply keeping them for amusement or because they may be pets. It is essential, therefore, I hold that these poor cows should be destroyed. I am sorry that the Minister has not introduced some scheme for assisting cow testing associations. It is only by means of tests carried out by such an association that people can get to know whether the cows they have are worth keeping or not. The test would reveal the yield in milk given by all the cows in the herd. Not only is that the case as far as cows are concerned, but it also applies in the case of bulls. No one could discover, merely by looking at a bull, whether the animal was likely to be prolific or not. Some people, of course, are better judges of cattle than others, but no man can be certain in such a case by merely looking at an animal. The sending of inspectors down to a district to judge bulls on their appearance and to award them points, as is done at local shows, is, I suggest, going to lead to terrible failure. You cannot discover the utility of an animal merely by looking at him.
Let us take the example of racing. Everyone knows that in racing we have a stud-book. That is of enormous utility, and has led to a vast improvement in the quality of our race-horses. In addition to the stud-book we have the racing calendar. The career of every thoroughbred horse that runs on a racecourse is noted down in the racing calendar, whether the horse wins or loses. Taking the stud-book and the racing calendar together, you can study the career and the record of every thoroughbred animal that is engaged in racing, and in that way you can gain reliable information as to the strains that produce good race-horses. Some people tried to breed race-horses by their looks, or by adopting some fad or fancy of their own, but in such cases the people who did these things had to pay dearly for their experience, and met with nothing except great disaster. In Germany that was tried in the Royal stud. Horses were bred according to their looks, but the result was absolute failure and terrible disaster. There is only one test for all these things, and that is success. The only way you can test cows or bulls is by their success— in the case of cows by their milk-yielding qualities, and in the case of bulls by the quality of the progeny they produce. Therefore I say that if the Minister sends down inspectors to the country to judge bulls merely by their appearance he is certain to meet with disaster. I am glad to know that cow-testing associations are now fairly numerous all over the country. It is essential that these associations should be utilised to the fullest for the purpose of ascertaining the good qualities of both cows and bulls. Those which, on test, have proved to be failures should be scratched out.
I agree with what Senator Sir John Keane and other Senators have stated as regards limiting certain classes of stock to certain localities. I think that is a power that we should not give to anyone, to the Minister or anyone else. I am at one, however, with the Minister in his desire to wipe out scrub bulls, but I would not be in favour of giving him a free hand to prevent thoroughbred stock being introduced into any particular district. As far as half-bred stock is concerned, I would be prepared to give him that power, but not in the case of thoroughbred stock, because I believe if such power were given to him it would lead to serious trouble.
Suppose, for instance, there are three men in a district who have Friesian cattle, must each of them have a Friesian bull for the use of his own stock? Such a bull cannot, of course, be used for the service of his neighbour's cattle. I think it is unreasonable to expect the owner of each of these three herds to keep a Friesian bull, and I do not think we should consent to that. One of these men may be a poor man, and he may not be able to buy a Friesian bull. Hence I do not think we should give that power to the Minister. It is also to be remembered that people are addicted to fashions about these things. We here in this country are not free from those fashions. Indeed the Department itself is full of fashions. The Congested Districts Board was full of fashions and ruined the breed of Connemara ponies by the methods they introduced of sending animals of the hackney type into that part of the country. When in Limerick I asked farmers their opinions about their cattle. They said their cows were poisoned by the Shorthorn bulls brought down there. Their cows were giving no milk, while the old Limerick cow was a very good milker. The cows were actually poisoned by the bulls which were introduced into the district. Beef Shorthorns were brought down there first. That resulted in disaster. Then an attempt was made to get Shorthorns to produce milk but that was not a success either. Some people think it was, but there were differences of opinion on the matter. Down in Limerick they they told me it was not a success. We were told also that when they tried to breed Shorthorns for milking purposes they became delicate. The result was that they had to cross them with a beef stock again to make them healthy. I do not think the Minister should be given a free hand in the matter of preventing thoroughbred stock being introduced into a particular district. On that matter there was great opposition to the Minister's proposal in the Dáil. It is a matter, too, on which I hope the Seanad will offer strong opposition. We must see that some sort of liberty is given to the individual and that he will be given the opportunity of judging for himself the sort of stock that he ought to have. That is a matter that will be dealt with on the Committee Stage, when the amendments to the Bill are being considered.
There is one other thing I would like to have in the Bill from the Minister and that is, that in all licences he issues of pedigrees, the dam and sire should be entered where possible. It can always be entered as far as thorough-bred stock are concerned and sometimes so far as half-bred stock also. Of course, where it cannot be done, it cannot be helped; you cannot change the whole system of the country in a day; but I would like to have the dam and sire recorded on every licence and also, where possible, cow-testing records as to the produce of the stock of the daughters of these bulls, because the milk yield goes very much by the bull and perhaps more than by the cow.
I beg to give an unqualified support to this Bill. Some of the best cattle in the world are produced in Ireland; some, I regret to say, are not the best. The Department of Agriculture, for more than a quarter of a century, has done work on the voluntary principle, in some districts and some counties with great success. In other counties the failure is not due and cannot be laid at the door of the Department of Agriculture, but is due to the apathy and inertia of the farmers in these district. The aim of the Bill is not to do what is just good enough for the improvement of our cattle trade. The aim is rather to try and make Irish cattle what they can be brought to, that is, the best in the world. Our climate and soil are particularly suitable for the raising of good cattle. Our country is absolutely free from disease, and our system of farming on a small farm scale is particularly suitable for the raising of good cattle. The farms are limited in area, and if the farmer is able to maintain ten cattle, why not maintain ten of the best cattle in the world, rather than ten middling ones or ten scrubs. Further, when it is known world wide, as it will be by records, that this country is not only free from disease but free from scrubs, the buyers of cattle will turn from all countries in Europe and from America, as they have, for some years past to a limited extent, to Ireland for their cattle, and our cattle trade will come to the forefront as has our horse trade.
If one were to go into all details and indulge in pin-pricks in connection with this Bill, we might fetter it with so many precautions that the task of the Minister would be a hopeless one. Unless we leave, to some extent at all events, a free hand to the Department of Agriculture, I do not think the Minister could achieve his purpose. If you consult the tastes and the fashions of every individual district you will be consulting, not experience, but perhaps to a great extent, the ignorance that prevails, because every man thinks his land is the best land in the world, his horses the best in the world, and his cattle the best in the world. And the man that thinks that very often is a man referred to in another Bill as the man that makes use neither of the roads nor of the railways. He knows nothing outside his own fairs, and when he sees quotations for cattle sometimes 20/- or 30/- per cwt. higher than his own, he thinks it due to some system of robbery or of jobbery, but never would he admit that it is due to the quality of the cattle. For years and years this Bill has been looked forward to, because in most districts now there are to be found up-to-date farmers, good farmers, middling farmers, and backward farmers. This Bill will not affect the good farmer; it will give a push to the middling farmer, and it will be a whip to the bad farmer, and it is high time he got it.
I think it is due from me as a farmer that I should give my support to the Second Reading of this Bill. I am sure the Minister has made a quick and strenuous effort to remove what he believes to be a great defect in our cattle industry, the scrub bull. But I appeal to him, while doing that, to take care he will not in fact do injury by eliminating useful cattle. I think he ought to consider that. I think he has reason to feel proud of his progeny, but proud as he may be of his progeny, I think he will be prouder still of it if he accepts certain amendments, and perhaps then he may find he has done more work in a short time for agriculture than has been done in generations past. The Department of Agriculture has been spoken of, and perhaps the Department has done many bad things, but I do not think the Minister has done one bad thing. As regards the points urged by other Senators with regard to Galloway cattle in the West, it would be well, perhaps, for the Minister to cry halt, because otherwise there may be danger of inflicting grave injustice.
I rise to ask the Minister's interpretation of Section 7. We have heard him a great deal on the scrub bull. The experience gained some years ago by the Commission set up by the late Arthur Griffith to take evidence from every authoritative source in Ireland was this: They arrived at the conclusion that much could be done towards improving the quality of our cattle. If bulls prove themselves, when placed in a certain environment and on certain qualities of land, to be useful sires, I think they should be retained with the object of serving cattle, instead of being slaughtered ruthlessly at three or four years of age. When you provide an improvement, then, of course, the scrub bull may very properly be slaughtered to make room for better bulls. I think the Department should make special efforts in every district where they find the bull proves himself to retain that animal, even if they had to purchase him, as long as he is able to serve cattle.
Another matter that is to be found in the researches and investigations made by that committee is that where milk is required the cattle we have at present can only be forced up to a certain point. If you force them beyond that they will have their limitations, whereas as regards cattle in other countries, such as the Friesian cattle and other breeds, the more you feed them the more milk you get. They are a purely milking breed of cattle, of a milking strain and quality. That has been bred in them for generations. I would suggest to the Minister, seeing that such grave mistakes can be made by the introduction of wrong cattle into a district, that more care should be taken. A mistake ranging over the period of a year may take years and years to undo.
With regard to every class of stock, it is largely a matter of mixing. You may put a bull in with cattle for a particular object, but he may not mix with the cattle with which he is put; you may find all your labour in vain and that he would do a lot of harm instead of good. This particular Commission had in view the establishment of a stud farm where experiments could be carried out in the matter of the crossing of cattle. It was contemplated experimenting with the Friesian cattle, large-framed animals, in the hope of producing good store cattle and combining also an excellent milking quality.
We are after two things in this country; we are after an increase in milk and the betterment of store cattle. The Commission considered that an experiment might very fairly be tried with the introduction of a stud farm and the introduction of half a dozen Friesian cattle. Of course, it would be only after years of experience had proved the success of the experiment that any attempt would be made to send out cattle to any district. That would be, of course, a very prudent, cautious and thoroughly sound way of trying to improve the quality of your cattle both for beef and milk.
The present indiscriminate method of going to Dublin, as I have done myself, and buying premium bulls, without knowing whether they were bred from a beef or a milking strain, is not satisfactory. Sellers would usually tell you one thing or another indiscriminately, and that system could never be considered satisfactory. Taking bulls in that fashion would result simply in destroying your cattle; that sort of indiscriminate working should be discountenanced. I think the Department have gone a good way in that direction, and they are, at the present time, taking more care in regard to those matters.
These matters include a few of the subjects that the Minister is familiar with. The report I have referred to was very valuable and was considered so by those who read it at the time. There were many suggestions in it based on the experience of those from whom evidence was taken, very valuable suggestions which should be put into practice at the earliest possible moment.
This Bill is a compulsory Bill, and, on the Second Reading, the particular issue of whether or not you should use compulsion, ought to be discussed and decided. The attitude adopted by some Senators is somewhat puzzling. I am not quite clear whether they are for or against compulsion. I am perfectly certain that whether or not they may admit the principle of compulsion on Second Reading, we will have to fight the whole principle over again on three or four sections in Committee. I suppose that is unavoidable. Take, for instance, the attitude of Senator Sir John Keane. Up to a point he was in favour of it. It was the recommendation of the Agricultural Commission, the report of which he had signed. Then came the stage at which Senator Sir John Keane and other Senators branched off and they gave us extremely valuable disquisitions against the whole principle of compulsion as applied to anything.
I cannot meet argument of that kind. Arguments against the principle of compulsion are arguments against any application of that principle. If it is absolutely wrong and unheard of to use compulsion to prevent a bull of the wrong type going into a certain district, it is equally wrong to use compulsion to prevent a diseased or defective bull going into that district.
No.
Mr. HOGAN
Senator Moore says it would not be. I hold that any argument against the general principle is equally an argument against the application of that principle. If Senators condemn the general principle—and they have condemned it in rather extravagant language—then they are condemning any application of it. You cannot have it both ways. If your attitude is that the Bill in certain clauses, where it takes compulsory power and where the Department intends to use that power, is quite all right, and that in other clauses compulsion is wrong, there is something amiss. You cannot accept the general principle of compulsion, and then point out that the only way to get any results is by education and persuasion and so forth.
There seems to be a considerable amount of misconception. Section 3 makes quite clear the considerations the Department must take into account when considering whether or not they will refuse to license a bull. It is not contemplated, I would like to point out to Senator Keane, that we should take charge of all the bulls in the country. It is not contemplated to supply each man with a bull. Our attitude is that the people shall buy their own bulls and make their own arrangements. We may refuse a permit for these bulls because of the three specific reasons set out in the Bill.
I gather that Senator Kenny was under the impression, when he spoke of the necessity of getting just the right strain and making sure that a particular bull mixed with the cattle, that the Department's Inspectors go down and examine a bull and then point out that, because of some defect in its pedigree, the bull may not be used for service in that particular district. The Inspectors cannot do that. The only powers taken are powers to refuse a license for the three specific reasons set out in Section 3. That may be right or wrong; we can argue that in Committee. I hope it is clear that the only powers the Department have under the Bill are powers of refusing a licence for a bull presented for inspection for the three reasons stated. One, that the bull is defective from the point of view of substance and quality; two, that it may be diseased, and three, that it is a breed or type unsuitable for the district. That rules out a very large number of points. The Department's inspector cannot say that it is not a milk bull, cannot say that it is not a beef bull. He cannot go into points like that at all; it would be impossible. There are degrees of compulsion after all. Senator Colonel Moore stated that really people should have some liberty, while at the same time he suggested that the Department should take considerations into account which would mean coercion in the very last degree. They were to see what sort of cows a man had. The cows were to give a certain yield of milk, and if they did not the unfortunate farmer or tenant purchaser of Connemara or Kerry was to be told: "You have got to kill that cow." That is quite right, according to Senator Colonel Moore. He would go three times as far as I do in that direction, but it would be anathema to do what any collection of farmers who discuss the question would agree to, what was not challenged by a single person at the Mallow Conference—the best meeting of farmers yet held in Ireland—to say that no bull but a Kerry bull shall go into a certain limited district in Kerry. One cannot get anywhere on those lines. We must discuss this as a business matter, and with very close attention to the particular powers which the Bill takes; no more and no less.
With regard to the particular clause which, I agree, is debatable, Section 3, sub-section (2):
"Except in the case of a pure-bred bull (entered or eligible for entry in a prescribed herd-book) the property of one person and used exclusively for the service of cows the property of that person, the Minister may refuse to grant a licence under this Act in respect of a bull which appears to him to be of a breed or type unsuitable for the district in which it is kept or is proposed to be kept,"
I stated as an example of the operation of the Bill that only a Kerry bull would be allowed into a certain district in Kerry. That is a very limited district and there are Senators who know that district. The breed is almost pure there. We all know enough about breeding to know that it is a good thing at least to start with the native stock. That is the experience of every country. You have a native stock there; you have a cow that, in my opinion, has a future not only in this country, but in the poorer lands all over Europe. You certainly have a cow that is suitable for large areas of this country, the mountainous areas into which she has not already penetrated.
I do not believe that any responsible committee of farmers would disagree with the policy of preventing non-Kerry bulls from entering that area, unless you hand-picked them for the purpose of getting a decision against it. I am perfectly satisfied that any representative consultative council would agree with that, if only from the point of view of the farmers who live in that particular area, who can get very good prices for their stock all over Kerry, and from the point of view of the farmers of Connemara, where the Kerry bull has not yet reached, notwithstanding all the talk of the Department spoiling the Kerry cattle by crossing them with Galloways. They never sent Galloways into Kerry; they sent them to Connemara, and they still continue to send them there. They are extremely suitable for Connemara, but the Kerry cows have never yet been crossed with Galloways.
But there is nothing in the Bill limiting this to Kerry. This can be done in any part of Ireland according to the will of the Minister.
Mr. HOGAN
Let us agree that this is useful for that purpose, and we can then examine the question as to whether there is danger that that particular power would be abused. You have to remember, also, that this Bill will be in operation for twenty or thirty years. Conditions do change slowly, I admit, but they do change, and it may be that after twenty or thirty years there would be particular cases where, with the consent of everybody, you would apply in that connection also some restrictions. It was stated that the consultative council is really of no value from the point of view of preventing arbitrary action by the Department. Is that so? Section 15 says:—
The Minister shall, after consultation with such bodies and persons as he may consider most representative of the several interests concerned, establish by order a consultative council for giving advice and assistance to the Minister in connection with any matter in relation to the making of regulations under, or otherwise carrying into execution of, the provisions of this Act, or any other matter affecting the live-stock industry.
The said consultative council shall meet whenever summoned by the Minister, and also on such occasions as the council may from time to time determine.
Now, a consultative council must be set up, after consultation with the various interests. Farmers as a rule are pretty vocal. The council may meet whenever it wishes. Just imagine for a moment the case that was quoted, that the Department of Agriculture prevented the entry of Dairy Shorthorns into County Limerick. As Senator Colonel Moore rightly points out, the Minister might do that under the Bill. Imagine him doing it. First of all, you would have the consultative council unanimously against him. He would then have to come into the Dáil. We are now in a different position from that in which we were in the past. Questions of this kind can always be raised. The farmers are 2,000 out of every 3,000 of the population, and the unfortunate Minister for Agriculture would have to defend an action of that sort, and defend it in the light of the fact that the consultative council recommended against it. His position would be impossible, and undoubtedly the Dáil and the consultative council are the real safeguards for the industry against arbitrary action. Undoubtedly you cannot pass a Bill that will deal with the merits of the case unless you do take powers which have their uses, but which might be abused. Senator Colonel Moore would agree that it would be wrong to allow Jerseys into Limerick on a wholesale scale. No one wants that at present. But one or two bulls do a lot of harm. They multiply and increase very quickly.
If it is wrong, private judgment would prevent it being done, and is preventing it.
Mr. HOGAN
Senator Moore says it means that the Bill should not have been introduced. Private judgment is always absolutely right in spite of the fact that people do wrong. Hence there is no necessity for the Bill. I am just taking an extreme case. Jersey bulls might be brought to Co. Limerick. We should have power to stop that. There is no question but that would be wrong, and we should have power to stop it. I think most farmers will agree that to bring non-Kerry bulls to a district in Co. Kerry would be equally wrong. As Senator Colonel Moore points out, if you take power under an Act of Parliament to stop that, you also have an opportunity of abusing that power by doing something you could not do. The real safeguard is the consultative council and the Dáil.
I ask Senators to picture the position where a Minister does something he should not do in the face of intelligent public opinion. He could not do it in view of the position of the consultative council would take up. Further, "except in the case of a pure-bred bull (entered or registered for entry in a prescribed herd book)"—Senator Sir John Keane was rather sarcastic on the effects of that qualification; that it did not mean very much, allowing a man to bring in a pure-bred bull for the use of his own cows. I think any farmer will agree that we should refuse to license any cross-bred Hereford or Aberdeen-Angus bull, not only under sub-section (2) but also under sub-section (1). Any officer who knew his business would immediately see that a cross-bred Hereford or Aberdeen-Angus was unsuitable or defective, so that the application of that particular section is not nearly so wide. The argument used against sub-section 2, in respect of the pure-bred bull, could also be used so far as the Hereford or Aberdeen-Angus is concerned, in respect of sub-section (1). Leaving out the Kerry, the three main breeds are the Shorthorn, the Aberdeen-Angus and the Hereford.
It was suggested that calves should be dishorned and that it should be made compulsory to treat cattle for warbles. I agree with Senator Counihan. It would be worth probably 10s. a head, or, let us say, £700,000 or £800,000 per annum if calves were dishorned. The fact is you cannot introduce such a section into the Bill. This is a Bill to make provision for the regulation and improvement of the breeding qualities of cattle.
Could the name of the Bill be changed?
Mr. HOGAN
It is hardly the right procedure. If you change the Bill for that purpose what are you leading to? You must have some rule and regulation in these matters. This Bill has been discussed in the Dáil, has now reached the Seanad, and its only purpose is to improve the breeding qualities of cattle. Such a section as the Senator mentions, if it could be administered—and I am inclined to think that it could; though I see difficulties—would be more proper in some Bill regulating the treatment of cattle, such as might follow a conference with regard to improving the conditions of stock at the other side.
The same consideration applies to warbles. The fact is, if you could kill the warble fly and get it out of this country you would make a present immediately to the farmers of about one million pounds. That is outside the scope of this Bill, and the cost would be prohibitive. All this compulsion is not worth while unless it is first of all absolutely necessary, and, secondly, going to bring about substantial results. Is the Bill absolutely necessary? We are going to meet competition from North and South America in future. Beyond yea or nay the signs of the times point that way. For beef and butter we are going to meet with competition from North and South America. Beef and butter are the staples of Irish agriculture, and are going to meet far more keen competition in the future. Will the proper administration of this Bill, the Dairy Produce Act, and the Eggs Act, have substantial results? The answer to that question is, they will if the farmers co-operate with the Department in administering them. We cannot get anywhere if they do not co-operate. I am glad to say that all the signs of the times are that the farmers are anxious to co-operate.
Having discussed the matter with hard-headed farmers who are not by any means sanguine or unduly optimistic, within three years of the passing of the Bill there should be an improvement in quality of £1 per head. That is a most conservative estimate. That is about one million a year. Undoubtedly, after three, four, or five years of the administration of the Bill the increase in milk yield, at the most conservative estimate, should be 100 gallons per cow. That is about £3,500,000 per annum. We hear of tariffs and other schemes of all kinds to increase productivity, but where will you get anything to equal, if rightly developed, our agriculture, which is a real development of something that has grown up with the traditions of the country, is indigenous to the soil, something that is not new, is suitable, and has the experience and tradition of centuries behind it? It has its roots in the country, and is not liable to the dangerous possibilities of new developments. I think these are the only points except that I might have promised Senator Colonel Moore to submit my political speeches to him in future.